Consequences of the Power Hierarchy

After reading the selection of articles, I was really troubled by the many problems and inequalities that they discuss. Despite the fact that women differ in many areas of life considering race and class, the issues women face stem from the same root- the issue of power. This problem of power manifests itself in different ways, but nonetheless, it is the common ground for many of the injustices women face. As Steinem writes “white, non-poor males, [is] the group most likely to become hooked on the drug of superiority.” This drug of superiority creates the power hierarchy, which allows men to act out in ways to assert their power. This assertion of power, as we discussed in class, can unfortunately lead to rape and murder. Steinem’s notion of supremacy crimes plays into this power hierarchy also, as these crimes establish male supremacy and help men “find a place in a male hierarchy.” The problem of this power hierarchy is evident not only in power play situations between women and men, but also in social situations among women, as demonstrated in Crenshaw’s article.

Both articles from the NY Times demonstrate the difficulties women face in the armed forces, due to the fact that merely being a woman is still a relatively new concept. While some claim to not feel the pressures of being a woman, both articles stress that women are indeed still feeling the pressures and prejudices of being the “othered” gender. When sexual abuse happens in these circumstances, the dilemma of whether or not to report the abuse is doubled, as reporting the incident may cause waves of trouble for investigations and perhaps compromising their missions. Some women become reluctant to report the abuse in fear of their safety because they live in such quarters. However, when some women did choose to report the abuse, they were treated with punishments. Instead of focusing on the rape investigation, abuse coordinators chastised Helen Benedict for leaving her post and weapon. Instead of focusing investigations on a report abuse case, Sgt. Tracey R. Phillips was asked to leave the Army. I think the fact that “ a woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq” is a horrifying and sad statistic. It demonstrates that despite the fact that women are risking their lives and fighting alongside of men, men still do not consider women as their equals. Carrying out these acts of sexual violence is just another way for men to assert their power and “superiority.”

Some women also find themselves pitted against another battle of power, as outlined in Kimberle Crenshaw’s article. Crenshaw argues that women, and in most cases, women of color, struggle to come to terms with abuse, and how to report and react to it. Like the women discussed in the NY Times articles, Crenshaw’s women are faced with the issue of reporting their cases of abuse. For some women, reporting the abuse might cause investigations into their families, and some women do not want to run the risk of their families being investigated. Some women face the threat of being deported and being solely dependent on the person who is abusing them. I was most troubled by the case of the Hispanic woman and her son who were turned away from the shelter because she did not speak English. Although I understand the point of workers not being able to communicate with them, the fact that they knew she was living on the streets and still did not accept her is alarming. These shelters are supposed to be safe havens for women who are abused; a place where they can live free of the fear of their abusers. It seems unfair to me that some women are turned down because of their language capabilities. As Crenshaw suggests, this opens up another hierarchy of power, but this time it is among women themselves. Cases like this show that even in the most dire circumstances women still have to overcome the obstacle of who is holding the power.

RapeLay video game goes viral amid outrage

I logged onto my Gmail account today after class to find out that the headline of the day from CNN was about a new video game that involves assaulting and raping women. Pretty interesting given our discussion today. Below is the text from the article, and also link to the article on the CNN website:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/30/japan.video.game.rape/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

Tokyo, Japan (CNN) -- The game begins with a teenage girl on a subway platform. She notices you are looking at her and asks, "Can I help you with something?"

That is when you, the player, can choose your method of assault.

With the click of your mouse, you can grope her and lift her skirt. Then you can follow her aboard the train, assaulting her sister and her mother.

As you continue to play, "friends" join in and in a series of graphic, interactive scenes, you can corner the women, rape them again and again.

The game allows you to even impregnate a girl and urge her to have an abortion. The reason behind your assault, explains the game, is that the teenage girl has accused you of molesting her on the train. The motive is revenge.

When does a video game go too far?

It is little wonder that the game, titled RapeLay, sparked international outrage from women's groups. Taina Bien-Aime helped yank the game off store shelves worldwide.

"This was a game that had absolutely no place on the market," said Taina Bien-Aime of women's rights organization Equality Now which has campaigned for the game to be taken off the shelves.

But the controversy that led to stopping sales of the game instead took it viral.

That was how Lucy Kibble and Jim Gardner in Britain heard about it.

"I think the idea that you can do it by wholesale banning is just never going to work anyway because we downloaded it for free off the Internet," Gardner said.

In the case of RapeLay, he was right. It is still readily available on dozens of Web sites, sometimes for free.

What happened to RapeLay is an example, said Bien-Aime, of why Japan needs to police game makers.

"It's obviously very difficult to curtail activity on the Internet. But the governments do have a role in trying to regulate this sort of extreme pornography of children, both in their countries, and through the Internet ," she said, adding that they were calling for the Japanese government "to ban all games that promote and simulate sexual violence, sexual torture, stalking and rape against women and girls. And there are plenty of games like that. "

Those games are known as "hentai games." Almost all feature girlish-looking characters. Some of the games are violent -- depicting rape, torture and bondage in detail.

Step into a game shop in Akihabara, Japan's electronics district, and hentai games are readily available. In minutes, we found a game similar to RapeLay. The object here is also revenge: Find and rape the woman who fired the player from his imaginary job. Along the way, the player can rape a number of other girls and women.

Hentai games are not new to Japan. This country has long produced products the rest of the world would call pornographic. But before the arrival of the Internet, such items stayed in Japan. Now, once a game goes on sale in Tokyo, it is digitized and shared everywhere.

Japan does have censorship laws for sexual content. In games and videos, genitalia are obscured, even if it is animated. But Japan's laws do not restrict the themes and ideas of the games.

A national law that would make possession of real and virtual images of child porn illegal is under discussion, but no serious legislation has moved forward in Japan's parliament.

CNN contacted the Gender Equality Promotion Division in the Gender Equality Bureau of Japan's Cabinet Office, which is charged with handling the hentai gaming issue.

Despite repeated calls over a period of weeks, no representative from the government office would comment to CNN on camera. The office refused to make a statement on paper. A spokeswoman would only say over the telephone that the Japanese government was aware that the games were a problem and it was checking to see if self-policing by the gaming industry was enough.

A member of the Institute of Contents Culture, who did not want to give CNN his name, said restricting game themes limits freedom of expression.

"In my opinion, RapeLay's storyline went too far. However, if a game creator wants to express something and create content out of it, a government or public entity shouldn't have the power to restrain it."

Lucy Kibble and Jim Gardner, the gamers in Britain, said trying to control games on the Internet was futile and that content control was up to parents.

"The idea of banning it, or telling people what they can and can't do just because on the off chance some kid might get involved with it is just ridiculous," said Gardner.

Women and Violence

The common idea I found between the four readings was that in the world we live in today, women are forced into an inferior position that is subordinate to men and can result in social pressures towards teenage girls, as seen in the Levy reading, or to the more extreme scenario of violence towards women and rape as seen in the other three articles. In Levy's chapter "Pigs in Training" she explains how young girls especially in high school feel pressured to impress boys and act or dress in certain ways that will grab their attention in order to be popular. While all teenagers, both girls and boys, feel some pressure to fit in or be "cool", teenage girls in this generation have been programmed to think they need to give off the impression that they are sexually active or look "sexy" in order to be popular even if they are not ready or do not want to be sexually active. Levy explains these young girls are "conceiving of sex as a performance you give for attention rather than as something thrilling and interesting you engage in because you want to" (163). Thus the problem is that society is telling these young girls that they have to objectify themselves and basically submit themselves to boys' approval in order to feel cool or popular and essentially evaluate their own self-esteem based on what these boys, and other young girls think. Furthermore, often times young girls may feel so pressured to act "sexy" and promiscuous that they often engage in sexual activities that they may not know very much about or are doing for the wrong reasons. This leads into another point Levy made in that one of the problems with teenage sexuality is that the only education we are providing teenagers with is abstinence. Levy explains "we expect them to dismiss their instinctive desires and curiosities even as we bombard them with images that imply that lust is the most important appetite and hotness the most impressive virtue" (162). Teenagers are feeling inward pressure -- through changes during puberty and this new sex-drive -- and outward pressure -- from society to dress sexy and act as if both boys and girls want to be sexually active, yet the education is sending a message to completely dismiss these feelings and ignore these social pressures, which in all likelihood is not realistic. Thus in order to correct these problems and help teenagers adapt to the changes that they are experiencing, there needs to be more communication about these new feelings and about all aspects of sex, not just abstaining from it.

Just as Levy highlights the inequalities between boys and girls and the disadvantage that young girls have to objectify themselves in order to gain the approval of boys, on a much more intense scale, Walker and Morgan point out the inferiority of women based on the fact that they live in a world in which they are forced to fear men. As Walker explains, men don't walk down the street afraid that a women may attack them yet if a woman walks down the street late at night and a man approaches behind them, she can't help but begin to worry for her safety. While this may be a result of the basic physical differences between men and women -- men are simply much stronger and have the ability to over power women -- this need to use these power against women is a direct result of the patriarchal and competitive society that we live in today. Women are at the mercy of men and women's levels of security and self-esteem are subject to the control or power of men. Consequently women must learn to defend themselves from men, as Walker did in order to escape this fear that all women feel at some point in their lives.

One last interesting point I found in the Morgan article was that Morgan explains even when women have been sexually assaulted or raped, they are sometimes blamed for these acts of violence or it is assumed that the women somehow wanted it. Yet if men were assaulted they wouldn't be blamed or criticized for the violence that traumatized them. Based on this idea, it seems as if in our society women just simply cannot win and are always at fault. I think this idea may be a bit of a generalization and I think the cases in which women are blamed for sexual violence is a small percentage, but I think it is important to recognize that as Morgan experienced, women have a lot more challenges to face simply because they are women and sexual violence is definitely at the top of these challenges. Thus whether a young teenage girl is feeling pressured to wear very sexy clothing or have sex before she is ready or an innocent women is raped walking back to her home late at night, these are all challenges women face simply because of their sex and as women, we must overcome this fear and pressure in order to escape these disadvantages -- however this is much easier said than done.

c-sections, selective journalism and safety?

I find writing about these articles tough because of the harsh critisizm provided by Goer. I read Gawande first, thinking it was a very well written, well produced and supported article. Now after reading Goer, I'm assured once again that things aren't always what they seem to be.

Examining Gawande before reading Goer, you can see that Gawande's idea of medicine as an industry, but it is hard to totally accept it. Industry is described as: Commercial production and sale of goods. A specific branch of manufacture and trade. Energetic devotion to a task or an endeavor; diligencee......alot of these tie into Gawande's idea. When Gawande says "You begin to wonder whether forty-two thousand obstetricians in the U.S. could really master all these techniques" speaking about all the different techniques it takes to deliver a baby safely. Are they not doctors? I assume a heart surgeon has numerous ways and techniques to his trade, so I have to disagree him doubting that doctors can adapt and master the numerous ways to birth a child. There is ALWAYS a risk in any kind or medical procedure, there is no miracle surgery, which Gawande suggests the C-section is. His story about the queens 50 hour surgery over a hundred years ago, comparing to Rourke's tale today is a shot at trying to automatically make us believe that C-sections are a best/the best option for survival in today's life.

After reading Goer, we can tell that he takes a more realistic approach to medicine. He weighs the risks/rewards of c-section vs. vaginal birth, the somewhat selective nature of Gawanda's scientific evidence. Goer also shows reasons as to why Rourke had to resort to a C-section, and shows that all of Gowande's so called medical advancements could have ultimately led to the dangerous surgery

From reading these two articles, we can say with no doubt that medical advancements have led to more newborns and more mothers lives being saved, but natural childbirth is not something to be discarded, as well as some techniques that have been used for many years.

News Flash: Semenya's greatest accomplishment

Berlin, August 2009, a young female from South Africa blew away the competition with a record setting time in the 800m.  As amazing of a race she had, people seemed to be talking more about Caster Semenya’s physical appearance rather than her victory.  Her shaded upper lip, flat chest, and carved abs had media, officials, fans and athletes speculating the gender of this young African idol.  Semenya adamantly stated she was a woman, and has lived her whole life as one. News then leaked that Semenya was to undergo sex verification testing, and perhaps her medal, title and prize money were in jeopardy. Later on, Semenya was permitted to keep her medal and money, but hasn’t been cleared by officials to race again.  With the chaos and secrecy surrounding this whole situation, it is evident that athletics is a two-sex world, which deems anything abnormal that is not strictly male or female. This story and it’s controversy proves that media, and our society is still concerned with defining individuals as male or female and until that changes, the normal will always be abnormal.

The problem is not that Semenya may or may not have intersex characteristics, but rather how poorly the situation was handled involving Semenya’s rights and privacy.  This relates to our readings in relation to the lack of respect of Cal in Middlesex, as well as Sexting the Body. News about her testing broke to the public without her knowledge or consent. Although there is no doubt this situation should have been dealt with better, in regards to something such as sports, where hormonal differences can make a large difference, Semenya shouldn’t be able to participate if she does have male hormones and if it gives her an advantage over her female competitors.

The real question though is, Does Disorders of Sex development (yes I realize this is a 2 sex and old fashioned term but it is used in the news article) really give a clear-cut advantage? In a recent Time magazine article, a urological surgeon from Oxford stated,  “There is no evidence that female athletes with DSD have displayed any sports-relevant physical attributes which have not been seen in biologically normal female athletes."  The article goes on even further to state that most females have such varied levels of hormones that it is often difficult to determine what a regular level of these “enhancing” hormones are. With these statements, we have to ask, why isn’t Semenya permitted to participate yet?

 

Semenya has surprisingly dealt with the controversy surrounding her with great poise. In a feature article in an African magazine Semenya posed on the cover looking feminine and glamorous. Semenya explained her views on all the speculation about her sex, "It doesn't upset me. God made me the way I am and I accept myself.” The African community has supported her throughout this ordeal and it seems that although there is no true answer on her gender has been released to the public, they simply don’t care. 

 

Semenya has lived her whole life as a woman, and if perhaps she is in fact intersex this could very well support the idea suggested in class that Gender/Sex are more of a social idea than we give it credit for.  In fact, Semenya’s attitude and Africa’s response defies the normal treatment of a case like this. She has no desire to be one or the other, she loves how she is and accepts the differences. This indicates that the nurture vs. nature when undetected for so long can often only matter when a society sees it as a problem.  Semenya’s situation is very different than Cal’s, and although Middlesex is fictional, it shows the many differences and broad spectrum of intersex and how it is treated and handled in Societies.

 

Perhaps Africa has dealt with it well, but the media and nations in other parts of the world have not.  Semenya has been the punch-line in Jay Leno’s jokes, viewed as a freak in the athletic world, been slammed in sports talk shows, and much more.  Not only that, the language in talking about intersex in the sports world is very male/female geared, the usage of “Disease” of “Disorder” when referring to intersex is only making our society think of it that way, rather than viewing it as a natural occurrence in reproduction. In the handout shifting the Paradigm of Intersex Treatment, it can be said Semenya’s approach on her controversy is very similar to the Patient-Centered Model. The quote regarding the ideal future of intersex somewhat describes Semenya’s views on the matter “Social acceptance of Human diversity and an end to the idea that difference equals disease”

Semenya’s case doesn’t often directly connect with the readings in class, however it ties into the big picture.  The reaction by the media to her situation refers to the society and the stigma they automatically tag with intersex cases.  The officials who are currently ruling on Semenya’s situation are similar to the parents of a child, trying to find credible evidence to prove Semenya is fitting into a male/female role.  Semenya herself is that child, under the scrutiny and stress of being something everyone wants to scrutinize.

 

It is tough to come up with a verdict on Semenya being permitted to enter the competitive world of track again simply because of the lack of evidence released to the public surrounding her situation.  What is evident though, is that she handled her situation with poise and dignity, when many media individuals were trying to strip her of it simply because she didn’t fit into male/female checked boxes. The young women won a medal, but perhaps she has accomplished an even bigger feat as of late, by showing the world that she is comfortable and embraces what is nature. Although that doesn’t help her to get back out on the track, beating her opponents, it does show the world that although nature and nurture sometimes do not align, acceptance and nature can.

 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1963333,00.html

The Often-Confused Meaning of Pro-Choice

Allison Crews' article was the selection that resonated with me the most. I think people often confuse "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion" and while a lot of the time, that may be true -- but the bottom line is that it need not be true. Being pro-choice is about exactly what the term says: it's about having a choice. Pro-choice usually has a lot of negative connotations attached to it, especially from the pro-lifers. However, I don't think that pro-choice and pro-life are in direct opposition of one another, even though many people make it out to be that way. From page 148-149, Crews outlines what, we as women, have the right to do -- these rights are made possible by the wonders of being pro-choice. Pro-choice lets us choose what we want to do: keep our child, put our baby up for adoption, have an abortion, raise our children how we see fit, etc. These inherent rights by virtue of being pro-choice were granted to us as a result of Roe v. Wade, and are now entrenched in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Muscio and Arcana's articles were a little different than Crews, but very similar to one another. These articles discussed the importance of having a support system, a "women's circle" to make abortion more bearable for those going through it. These authors are concerned with women's health, and emotional and mental well-being before and after abortions. In particular, Arcana thinks that abortion should not be something that we go through alone, rather, something we can talk about without feeling guilty and ashamed.

I think the underlying theme in Crews, Muscio and Arcana is that women have a choice. They should not feel forced to be ashamed of the choices they make; they shouldn't feel guilty, or told that they made the wrong choice. The beauty of the pro-choice movement is that it makes the birthing process about "motherhood" like Arcana describes. It's not just about aborting or not aborting a fetus. This choice has to do with all aspects of motherhood, from the moment a child is conceived, what choice is made to do with the child, how it is born, who raises the child, how it is raised. Pro-choice doesn't begin or end with the question of: Should I terminate my pregnancy? No, pro-choice is something we as women have the right to live day in and day out, in embracing our sexuality, acting in whichever way we choose, having sex with who we choose to have sex with, and everything thereafter. So yes, abortion is an issue, a very heavy issue, but it's not the only issue when we're talking about "being pro-choice." Pro-choice is a lifestyle, it's not just something we say when we talk about abortion.

News Flash: Judaism and Same-Sex Marriage

In her presentation on “Judaism and Same-Sex Marriage” Vanessa Ochs discussed how same-sex couples have struggled to arrange a traditional wedding because of the heterosexual foundations that have shaped such weddings throughout history. Specifically, Ochs uses Jewish marriages to exemplify the ways in which Judaism perceives the communion between a man and a woman and the rituals involved in creating this communion. However, the problem with such communions and rituals is that with same-sex marriages, in order to carry out the traditional Jewish wedding, one person must take on the role of the bride and one must take on the role of the groom. Yet same-sex couples do not always have such clear-cut male and female roles, where the more masculine partner assumes the male role of the groom and the more feminine partner assumes the role of the bride. Thus, I argue that the struggle for same-sex couples in planning their weddings comes back to the idea of the two-sex or two-gender system, in which weddings and society in general have been constructed in such a way that people must fall into these two categories: male and female, or groom and bride. Consequently, we must do away with this bilateral system and instead of forcing people into one of two categories which they may not fit into, like making a lesbian partner assume the role of a groom, we must begin to embrace a system without gender types and labels.

Going along with Ochs’s ideas in her presentation, an article released in The Jewish Chronicle explains how bishops are beginning to conduct same-sex marriages and synagogues have also become open to same-sex marriages. While this may seem to be a mark of progress for Jewish same-sex couples who are now able to carry out such Jewish rituals, there still lies the problem for both Jewish same-sex couples and other same-sex couples looking to have a traditional wedding – which is that for so long weddings have required a bride and a groom. As Ochs explained, Jewish marriage rituals require the groom to present the Ketubah to the bride, which she accepts as a contract signifying their commitment to each other. Thus in order for a same-sex couple to carry out these Jewish rituals, one must present the Ketubah to the other; however if the marriage involves two men or two women, who carries out each role? Similarly, traditional weddings in the Western World usually require the groom to wait at the alter while the bride walks down the aisle, often times escorted by her father, to meet the groom. Then once the vows have been made, the priest or minister or whoever is leading the wedding will say to the groom, “you may now kiss the bride” in which case the groom unveils the bride and kisses her. In these weddings, there are such obvious roles that exist for the bride, the woman, and the groom, the man. Thus for a same-sex couple looking to have a traditional wedding, who takes on the role of waiting at the alter while the other person walks down the aisle, and who initiates the big kiss, which really serves as the big moment or climax of the wedding? As Ochs discussed, often times same-sex couples look to create their own rituals that work for them; however it is difficult for friends and family members attending the wedding to know exactly how to feel or respond to such unfamiliar practices. They are accustomed to stand up and feel overwhelmed with joy watching the bride walk down the aisle and they are programmed to wait with sheer excitement for that moment when the minister announces, “I know pronounce you husband and wife, you may kiss the bride!” The problem with creating new rituals is that those who are attending, those who are sharing that special moment of marriage with the couple, simply do not know what to feel and how to react. But also, for the couple actually getting married, it is possible that they want a traditional wedding and have dreamed of walking down the aisle with their father or waiting at the alter for their loved one or performing the traditions belonging to their own religions. However because of the gender roles that have been created and assigned to certain rituals and different aspects of life, those who do not fit into these roles are left at a disadvantage.

In her chapter, “That Sexe Which Prevaileth” Anne Fausto-Sterling explains how our society is obsessed with categorizing a person’s correct sex and consequently labels a person as either male or female based on the sex that dominates their personality, hence “that sexe which prevaileth.” The same categorization tends to happen with same-sex couples, in which, using the example of a lesbian couple, people tend to classify the more masculine woman as “the man” in the relationship and thus label the more feminine woman as “the woman” in the relationship. Consequently, when it comes to the wedding, people may tend to assume that the more masculine woman will take on the role of the groom, while the more feminine woman will take on the role of the bride. However, what happens if both women are both extremely feminine, and both wish to be brides and walk down the aisle in their weddings? Here lies the predicament in that a wedding without a groom and with two brides walking down the aisle is a clear deviation from a “normal” traditional wedding. Thus as Fausto-Sterling suggests, we must change these social constructs of gender and the roles that accompany them because not all people fit neatly into one of the two categories.

Using a different perspective, as Ariel Levy explains in her chapter “Womyn to Bois” it also happens that often times in a same-sex couple, there is a more masculine woman and a more feminine woman and they each carry out these male and female roles within their relationship. Thus, as Levy explains, these women are simply reaffirming traditional gender roles and conforming to this two-sex or two-gender system. However in this case, I think Levy herself may be getting caught in the bilateral trap in the sense that perhaps it is not that women portraying typically masculine qualities want to necessarily act like men, but rather the qualities that they do exhibit naturally are labeled as masculine. Thus once again, these dual labels -- male and female, masculine and feminine, groom and bride – only create limitations and problems, especially for the people who simply do not fit into either of the two categories.

Weddings are the practice of certain rituals that symbolize a love and commitment between two people and furthermore allow this moment of communion to be shared with family and friends of the couple. As Vanessa Ochs explained, these rituals are guided by certain beliefs and are meant to justify or legitimize the communion between a couple. However, throughout history these ceremonies have been based on a heterosexual, two-gender system in which there are clear-cut male and female roles, which consequently makes it very difficult for same-sex couples to have a traditional wedding. Thus, the two categories, male and female, and the roles assigned with each category must be erased in order for people who do not fit into either category to find their own place in society. Yet the real change ahead is restructuring a society that is not based on this two-gender system.

Pretty ugly: Can we please stop pretending that beautiful women aren't beautiful?

I came across this article and thought it was very interesting. Thought it addressed a lot of things we've talked about in class. Enjoy. Here is the text from the article:

After months of nudging from Jos and from my sister, I finally watched an episode of Glee. And then, because I loved it so much, I tried to watch every episode ever made so that I wouldn't be distracted from my work by the temptation of unseen plot twists and musical numbers. It was Glee binge, and it wasn't pretty.
Speaking of not pretty, isn't Rachel totally ugly? I mean, just look at her:

Hideous, right? One of the running themes of Glee is that Rachel, played by Lea Michele, is talented, but annoying, badly dressed and physically unattractive. In other words, they Liz Lemon her. Yeah, I just made that a verb - and it needs to be one, because there's a lot of Liz Lemoning going on these days.

For those of you who don't spend an embarrassing amount of your time watching sitcoms on Hulu, Liz Lemon originates with NBC's 30 Rock. The most frustrating thing about 30 Rock, an otherwise excellent show, are the constant references to the fact that Tina Fey's character Liz Lemon is ugly. The thing is, Tina Fey fits conventional standards of female beauty almost to a T. Liz Lemon, like Rachel, is a flawed character, but the constant references to her ugliness are just absurd. And while beauty is of course subjective, these two women absolutely meet our culture's standard of female beauty: they're young, white, slim, cis-gendered, well-proportioned and able-bodied, with long shiny hair and smooth skin. They may not be Victoria's Secret models, and they may have brown hair and glasses, but they certainly still meet society's standards of female beauty.

Writing about this very problem, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein writes that 30 Rock "didn't have the nerve to cast an actually frumpy actress in Liz Lemon's role. About half the jokes focus on Lemon's looks, and they're all undercut when the camera focuses on the slim, beautiful Tina Fey." Klein believes that the lack of nerve reflects "American television's terror of putting normal-looking people on screen." And he has a point: The closest we've gotten to an actually frumpy actress in a lead role lately is America Ferrera in Ugly Betty.

I personally think that Ferrera is gorgeous, but she's clearly a departure from the depictions of female beauty that we're used to seeing on TV. And that departure didn't last for long. In the first few seasons of the show, Ugly Betty's creative team was clearly taking some big risks: they had cast a lead actress who defied the standards of female beauty, and then they went out of their way to defy those standards even further, giving her heavy bangs, glasses, braces and dressing her in unflattering, unfashionable clothes. Betty was ugly, as ugly as any leading woman has been allowed to be in popular culture in some time. It was exciting to see a major network taking such a big risk, and to see viewers responding positively to a heroine who didn't look like every other heroine on the screen. But in more recent seasons, references to Betty's ugliness have started to feel like Liz Lemoning, because visually, a lot of that original ugliness has been done away with. Her hair has been pulled back off her face, and it's longer, straighter and shinier than in earlier seasons. Her clothes are no longer unflattering, and while she still dresses in garish colors and flashy prints, the garishness and flashiness are now far more fashionable, perhaps because they're designed by the same costume designer who masterminded Sarah Jessica Parker's wardrobe on Sex and the City.

So, what does it mean when even the "ugly" women on our screens are conventionally beautiful? Firstly, it means that the bar for female beauty is being set higher than ever: if Tina Fey, Lea Michele and America Ferrera are "ugly," what hope is there for the rest of us? It also means that we're being told one thing and sold another. We're being told that there is a space on television and in popular culture more broadly for women who defy conventional beauty norms, women who are "ugly." Hell, there's a whole show about a woman who's ugly! It's right there in the title! But in reality, those "ugly" women look an awful lot like the beautiful ones.

With progressive shows like 30 Rock (which was conceived and is written by a woman, and which has a fair bit of feminism to go along with its funny), Glee (which tackles a host of issues from sexuality to disability, with varying levels of success) and Ugly Betty (which is one of the first primetime shows about a Latino family, and which also tackles sexism, homophobia and the many faults of the fashion industry), this is particularly frustrating. These shows are meant to represent progress in a TV landscape that's dominated by male writers and super-hot actresses, in which minorities and minority issues are sorely underrepresented. And in many ways, they do signal progress. But when it comes to female beauty on television, it seems that standards are becoming stricter, the range of permissible shapes and sizes smaller. Sadly, these otherwise progressive shows are part of that problem.

News Flash: Patriarchy Within Our Walls

http://www.maroon-news.com/i-minus-the-city-i-bj-101-1.1163848

One of the many aspects Colgate University prides itself in is the intellectual vigor of its student body. The Maroon News claims to be one of the oldest running college publications in the country. Keeping this in mind, try reading the “Minus the City” column within the commentary section of our newspaper. Every issue I wait to see the titles of the writers’ new articles. With titles like “Sex Olympics” and “Ladies First” I often wonder how far the two writers will take their column. I was especially surprised when I came across an article titled “BJ 101.” Before I even started reading their article, I was convinced that finally they had gone too far. Not only is the article distasteful, it also demonstrates and perpetuates the patriarchal society that still exists today.

The article begins with a story about Buttercup, a sophomore in high school, and Prince Charming, a senior. Prince Charming asks Buttercup to perform oral sex on him and despite the fact that she has never done it before she complies. The writers suggest that performing oral sex can “kill time between your 8:30 and 9:45”. They give tips on how to achieve the maximum oral workout, using foods that resemble penises. With enough practice, “you will be blowing your friends away in no time,” pun intended I’m sure. The article closes with a reminder to have “fun” while performing oral sex.

Although it is quite easy to sense the sarcasm running through the piece, the article itself is offensive. What is an article like this doing in our school publication? There are several ways sex can be discussed tastefully, but the boys who wrote this article have certainly not fulfilled it in a tasteful manner. The joke in this case, is on Buttercup, the young inexperienced sophomore who leaves with “frosting on her nose and a smile on her face.” The implications behind this article feed into many of the dilemmas feminists face, most importantly the sexual objectification of women and the perpetuation of a patriarchal society.

Reading “BJ 101” through Levy’s lens, it is easy to detect the issues with the article. The most blatant offense is the fact that women are expected to perform these oral sexual behaviors without an understanding of why they are doing them, and without any notion of reciprocation. The writers never mention the involvement of intimacy and reciprocation is barely mentioned. Buttercup’s willingness to perform oral sex on Prince Charming feeds into Levy’s theory of women engaging in highly sexualized behavior in order to “prove” themselves. To assume that Buttercup would leave with a smile on her face, despite the fact that she had no clue what she was doing, is to assume that she received some sort of pleasure from this one sided sex act. The article closes, advising readers “an earnest (or even feigned) excitement and passion is crucial for the experience.” Suggesting that women fake their excitement is reminiscent of the fact that many women participate in pornography or videos like Girls Gone Wild without receiving any real pleasure, all the while putting on acts of pleasure. These acts are a result of the fact that women think they have to act this way to fulfill masculine fantasies.

Underneath its layer of sarcasm are ideologies of patriarchy. The underlying message of the article is that women will perform these acts because we will fall to a man’s charm, or in Buttercup’s case, “Prince Charming’s imploring green eyes.” The article portrays young women as “easy” and eager to participate in sexual acts that carry the minimum amount of intimacy. It characterizes men as the ones who carry a general detachment from sex with no obvious emotional engagement.

It is interesting to note the reactions of the online edition of the article. The comments range from praise of the article to downright bashing of the article. The comments are anonymous, but it would be interesting to discover the genders behind the comments. The fact that some people labeled this article as “hilarious” and “perhaps the most entertaining and perhaps informative article in the Maroon News” demonstrates that traces of patriarchy exist here within the walls of Colgate. One commenter suggested that “being male helps in appreciating the humor.” This comment points out the blatant sexism of this article, as it would be hard to find a handful of women who find this piece humorous. On the other hand, it could be argued that the people behind these posts are fulfilling social engraining on the other end of the spectrum. Johnson uses this argument in his discussion of patriarchy, explaining “the path of least resistance is to go along, and unless [the man] is willing to deal with greater resistance, that’s the choice he’s most likely to make.” Johnson’s reasoning could explain why some readers praised this article instead of calling it out on its distasteful manner.

Regardless of the fact of whether or not this article is humorous, its attempts to be humorous play into the patriarchal system of power. In the situations described in the piece, men are clearly the figures of power and women are expected to heed their desires with smiles and enthusiasm. Even if women are not truly enthusiastic about the prospect of performing oral sex, they are instructed to fake this enthusiasm to make the experience more pleasurable. There is a total disregard for the pleasures of women and Levy would agree that this is one of the fundamental issues. The fact that this article was printed demonstrates that some are still on the path of least resistance, and until the path is less traveled, change will be hard to come by.

Newsflash: IOC to look into drinking celebrations on ice by women's hockey team

One day after the Women’s Ice Hockey Gold Medal game at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, B.C., and you’d think all the talk would be about what a great game the champions from Canada played: how well they were forechecking, how great their penalty kill was, how awesome rookie goaltender Shannon Szabados played, how many shots they blocked, how Marie-Philip Poulin proved on the world stage that she had earned the right to be called the “female Sidney Crosby.” Well, think again. The Canadian triumph and superlative team performance – the first gold medal victory by the home team since Women’s Hockey was introduced to the Olympics in 1998 – was overshadowed by the team’s post-game celebration that included drinking beer and champagne and smoking victory cigars on the ice at Hockey Canada place (pictured above), long after the crowd had departed into the dark, cold Vancouver evening and the millions of television viewers had turned the channel to catch the last 10 minutes of American Idol. The morning after the gold medal game, all you had to Google was “Canadian Women’s Olympic Hockey” and you were bombarded with article after article about how tacky and distasteful the Canadians choice of post-game celebration was. The uproar surrounding the celebration, conveyed in a number of different articles, including the focus of this Newflash, “IOC to look into drinking celebrations on ice by women's hockey team” by CBS Sports, is deeply entrenched in patriarchal ideology. In other words, the Associated Press and International Olympic Committee attacked the Canadian Women’s Hockey Team because they were women acting in ways that are not “ladylike” and doing things that are considered by socially constructed gender roles as inappropriate for women to do.

CBS Sports’ account of the post-game celebration, like most writing on the gold medal game, does not contain any relevant information about the hockey game itself. Instead, it describes how shortly after the game, the Canadian players returned to the ice and were “swigging from bottles of champagne, guzzling beer and smoking cigars.” Marie-Philip Poulin, the 18-year old phenom from Quebec who scored both of Canada’s goals in the game, was seen drinking cans of Molson Canadian with her teammates; Poulin is not of legal drinking age in British Columbia until next month when she turns 19, but is legal in her home province of Quebec. The International Olympic Committee commented on the incident, declaring that it is “not what we want to see…[We] don't think it's a good promotion of sport values. If they celebrate in the changing room, that's one thing, but not in public. We will investigate what happened.”

The Canadian team issued a statement shortly after the barrage of negative media attention that came its way, stating: “The members of Team Canada apologize if their on-ice celebrations, after fans had left the building, have offended anyone. In the excitement of the moment, the celebration left the confines of our dressing room and shouldn't have. The team regrets that its gold-medal celebration may have caused the IOC or COC any embarrassment. Our players and team vow to uphold the values of the Olympics moving forward and view this situation as a learning experience.”

The problem with this article and the fact that there was such huge uproar about this particular celebration is deeply rooted in patriarchal ideology. Since it was women, and not men choosing to celebrate in this way, the whole world got so up in arms because that is not how “ladies should” act. Forget that these women had spent the past year together in Calgary, Alberta, training and playing together every day and just won their third consecutive Olympic gold medal. Let’s just pretend that never happened, right? The bottom line to many people that took offense to the beer and the cigars is that women should not conduct themselves in such a manner; apparently it’s tacky, distasteful and unladylike. Yes, it did look a little silly when Charlene Labonte and Kim St-Pierre were sitting up against the boards at Hockey Canada Place, still wearing their jerseys and goalie pads drinking out of the biggest Molson Canadian bottle ever produced; but these women had just accomplished a goal that very few can say that they had achieved and they were simply savoring the moment. It must have been a slow news day because the media was really trying to make a story out of nothing, create drama where no drama existed. Nevertheless, it is likely that the press jumped at the opportunity to berate these women for acting in such an inappropriate manner; after all, it is shocking to most people that women can exude their joy by drinking a beer and smoking a victory cigar, since their male counterparts are the ones who generally act out these clichés.

While it is impossible to know precisely what kind of reaction the Canadian Men’s Team would have elicited following Sidney Crosby’s gold medal winning goal in overtime against the United States merely three days later, it is highly likely that it would have been chalked up to just “boys being boys.” Every year after a team wins the Stanley Cup (or any other major sports trophy), the cameras in the locker room catch the guys popping bottles of champagne, spraying it all over the room and chugging it out of the Cup. There are players under the legal drinking age – Jordan Staal from last year’s champion Pittsburgh Penguins was only 20 when his team won the Cup comes to mind – who have definitely had a beer or two after winning hockey’s ultimate prize. Team captain Hayley Wickenheiser agreed, stating, “It’s celebrating, it’s hockey, it’s a tradition we do. When we see a Stanley Cup winner, we see them spraying champagne all over the dressing room, you see 18-year-old kids there and nobody says a thing.” The reaction from the IOC and from the press clearly exemplify the double standard in place as a result of the patriarchal ideology of society; when men do it, it is not a big deal – it’s just what guys do; meaning, they are allowed to swig a cold, refreshing beer after a hard day’s work on the ice, after winning their gold medal or Stanley Cup no matter how old they are. But when women choose to conduct their celebrations in such a manner, it is unfeminine, unladylike, unconscionable and downright unacceptable. This double standard in this case and the ensuing reactions from the press and backlash from the IOC leads one to wonder what are the parameters that define acceptable behavior of female athletes? What kinds of “naughtiness” are they permitted to partake in without being frowned upon? For instance, Lindsey Vonn can pose suggestively in Sports Illustrated in a bikini (meanwhile, she is a skier, so really, being in a bikini has nothing to do with her sport) because she looks “sexy” and is selling magazines to men who can look at her picture. However, the Canadian Women’s Hockey Team is committing big taboos by drinking and smoking to celebrate their victory. Evidently, it is not just a double standard between men and women, but a double standard between female athletes determined by the “naughty” behavior in which they choose to participate; one behavior might be deemed acceptable because it is sexy and others get pleasure from it (Vonn), while others are labeled as “tacky,” “distasteful” or “irresponsible” because women are acting “too much like men” (Canadian Women’s post-game celebration).

Moreover, even at this Olympic Games, after Canadian Jon Montgomery won a gold medal in Men’s Skeleton, he walked through the streets of Whistler drinking an entire pitcher of beer. Similarly, American snowboarder Scotty Lago won a bronze medal in the halfpipe and was photographed with a woman kneeling suggestively below his waist to kiss his medal. Nobody made a fuss about these two incidents – did you hear about them at all? The lack of negative media attention about these two incidents suggests that most of the backlash against the Women’s Hockey Team had everything to do with them being women – since it is apparently socially unacceptable for women to smoke a cliché victory cigar and drink a cold beverage. I’m not saying I condone going back out on the ice and drinking in public, and the players on the team completely recognized that they did a “poor job keeping it out of the public eye. It was more of a team celebration that we kind of got caught up in, something we definitely didn’t want to get out” according to goaltender, Shannon Szabados.

The fact of the matter is that their behavior did not conform to the standards of “ladylikeness” so deeply rooted in our society’s norms and values. This article clearly depicts the double standard that exists in society – men can get away with acting one way, while women are chastised for acting in the exact same manner because it is unfeminine. It is unfortunate that women have made so much progress over the years, particularly in the field of athletics. They have so much talent and ability, yet they still are viewed as “not male” – they can have all the skill in the world, but at the end of the day, they are not men and it is not okay for them to act like it either; case in point, the post-game celebration was deemed as a “guy thing” that women should not be doing, so the negative backlash ensued. Now, it is likely that more people will now remember the gold medal game for the post-game celebrations rather than the competition itself, which is also unfortunate because it was a great game, and I’d be lying if I said part of me didn’t wish I were back home in Canada that night to celebrate in style just like the Women’s Hockey Team.

Let's talk about sex

In Rebecca Walker's article, "Lusting for Freedom" she discusses the importance of learning and exploring all that sex has to offer and goes even further to say that instead of feeling ashamed or embarrassed about openly talking about sex and experimenting with such a natural part of life, we, women, should feel rightfully compelled to explore our bodies and share our experiences. While I don't intend to advocate that 11-year-old girls should be having sex all the time, I do think Walker brings up a very important point in that traditionally most cultures have looked at premarital sex without the intention of reproduction as something shameful and inappropriate. As a result, women who engage in premarital sex or sex for the purpose of pleasure usually feel like they have to keep it a secret and thus don't ever talk about their experiences or their feelings or thoughts on the subject. As Walker points out, this definitely has the potential to lead women down the path of unprotected sex or violence because they just don't have enough information on how to practice safe sex. However, as Western culture has begun to make sex more acceptable and has even promoted sex, women who have a lot of sex, especially with different partners are still labeled "whores" or "sluts" which only makes women feel the need to hide their sex lives to avoid shame and embarrassment even more.

In "Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris", Sonia Shah describes her little sister who has been conformed by Western norms to embrace tight jeans and "sexy" tops and flirting with boys to catch their attention, which Walker also admitted was part of her sexual drive. This makes me wonder -- is a woman's desire for sex driven by the need for personal exploration and revelation, or by her need for attention, which also provides a personal gratification. I think Walker would say both factors play into a woman's desire to engage in sex, but often times, especially at younger ages, I think the need for attention and social approval compels young girls to engage in sex before they have physically and emotionally developed.

Although Walker was lucky enough to have safe sexual encounters, sometimes girls who have sex before they have enough information or are really ready end up with STDs or early pregnancies or find themselves in dangerous situations including the possibility of rape. However, I do think with the correct information and intentions, women have every right to explore their bodies sexually and even more to talk about their experiences and feelings in order to increase awareness and promote safe sex. Furthermore, I think women should be able to do so without being labeled as a slut or a whore if their intentions are simply to find a sense of pleasure and empowerment in the act of sex. Unfortunately, often times young girls feel pressured into having sex for reasons including attention, approval and the desire to fit in when in reality they are not truly not ready for sex.

Fitness: painful or powerfull?

When reading the Valdes article, I began to think about fitness from eyes of a woman.  I guess because I have always had a purpose in training for a sport I didn't really think much about how this whole realm of woman and exersize. I began to see both sides that Valdes shows to us.... the idea that the female body is a burden(which she strongly disagrees with) or the idea that the body is a vehicle through which everything comes to us and goes from us.  I guess my opinion on the matter is that fitness is a double edged sword. You can look at it like truly its goal is to that women want to be skinny and look younger (Burden) or that getting out there, getting active with your friends, and women you may not even know brings people closer together and truly promotes a sense of empowerment.

Take for example the "Boot Camp" my mother attends.  Now I come from a small town, around 400 people. My cousin Jenna, a certified instructor started a boot camp, and it is a good thing for the town, with no gym women are forced to buy their own equipment and work out alone.  Lots of women in the community, young and old now gather twice a week, in the school gymnasium.... many wearing things they simply shouldn't. After hearing my mom rave about it on the phone for three months, when I came home at christmas I decided to go there.  Jenna walked in, put on the music, and we got to work. For the next hour I hopped, skipped and danced around, and was thoroughly impressed with what was going on around me.... whatever reasons these women joined the boot camp for, (to lose weight, needed company, were unhappy with their lives or simply wanted to be healthier) it honestly didnt matter anymore..... they came for the fun of it. There was laughter, sweat, cheering and chatter.  I realized this was a place for the ladies of my traditional community to gather and feel good about themselves.  For that time they didn't care about their kids, or their weight, or what they were going to make for dinner, or who was going to drive the kids to the rink this weekend. They were liberated, doing something challenging with each other, bonding over the beat of the black eyed peas. Not only that, as I spent more time at home I realized the Boot Camp has brought the women of my town closer together, stregthened the bonds of a community that always had its cliques.  So I guess I have to disagree with Valdes' last paragraph. Because of that day I believe empowerment can be reached in the modern fitness industry. I believe Valdes' underestimates the power and pleasure of escaping the serious business of our lives.

And so my blog may have had little to do with the true message of todays readings, but its my blog......... so ha!

Steinem: Can we do better than this?

This blog entry serves as my thoughts/answer to Steinem's concluding question at the end of her article, "Sex, Lies and Advertising." Given that this article was published in 1991, I think I should be able to shed some light on this question that Steinem poses to her readers.

Steinem's opening paragraph really caught my eye and really made me think. She says, "Suppose archaeologists of the future dug up women's magazines and used them to judge American women. What would they think of us--and what can we do about it?" Honestly, what would they think of us? Looking at the state of most women's magazines today even in 2010, it's all about fashion, hair, how to get guys, sex tips, how to cook for your man, etc. If an alien species learned about women in our culture by simply looking at this magazines, they would probably think we're nothing more than a bunch of superficial bimbos trying to land the right guy. It's no secret that most of women's magazines today lack substance and hard-hitting articles that don't just scratch the surface and go beyond the aesthetics of concealer and mousse. It's also no secret that most advertising companies, as Steinem points out, are pretty reluctant to place ads for their products in women's magazines. After all, women don't care about technology, cars, finance or alcohol, right?

Steinem's stories about advertising really resonated with me because they're so blatantly true, and I think often, very overlooked: using semi-nude women to make you want to buy a new Porsche, showing that if you drink Budweiser beautiful women will flock to you, or that when a salesperson tries to sell a new stereo system to a women, she isn't intelligent enough to decide on her own what brand to buy -- she needs her husband there to make the choice. I honestly don't know if the problem is with advertising, though. I think the problem with advertising is a byproduct of the real underlying problem: the content problem with women's magazines. What are we calling a "women's magazine?" What kind of content does it need to have to be targeted to women? As a woman, when I think of that term, I think of the quintessential, hair, makeup, men combination. It's embedded in my thought process and I have trouble thinking any other way.

So yes, Steinem makes a valid point is saying that making women's magazines as "ad-free as books" would help the credibility of these types of publications -- but is it enough? I think in the next sentence, she more correctly hits the nail on the head in declaring that it's about "changing the traditional practices of all women's magazines and in the marketing of women's products." It's about changing our culture, and exemplifying that women are not just "other sex," concerned with the simple pleasures in life, beings without any real substance or interests. We need to falsify those beliefs, and it begins with doing little things like the four suggestions Steinem gives on the last page. It will require a concerted effort to change advertisers minds, and I think the minds of people in general, proving that women do not suffer from a "lack of information, insight, creativity, and laughter," even though that may sometimes seem like the case in a lot of "women's publications." Ultimately, to answer Steinem's question: yes, we can do better than this. And it's not going to be easy, but it's like with many things in the women's movement, it will take a change in culture and a change in perception of women for us to say that we are "doing better than this," doing better than we currently are.